Is the Cross Just Another Lie? (Revised)

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Respecting the terms and conditions of ATS I decided to re-write this thread and to put it back into circulation. I desire to not only keep this thread in my archives, but I wish to stimulate thought and possible discussion. I ask therefore, that there be intelligent responses and no whining!

One of the major reasons that I feel it is so important to bring this subject back up is; because I feel it is one of the greatest hoaxes associated with Christendom. If we can expose this possible "secret" regarding religion, then perhaps it will reveal more!

As I have said a few times, I believe that Jesus did indeed exist, but for a far bigger reason than religion teaches. Many do not believe that he even existed, but for sake of argument let's suppose he did. Many also believe that it is possible that he never died a sacrificial death, that he may have had a stand-in, and that he may have lived on, moved back to Egypt, or to France, etc.

I have spent years doing research on the subject of the cross. I just feel it is important to share what I do know. And hopefully, you all will share your knowledge! So here are some of the reasons why Jesus most likely did not die on a cross.

1. Jesus is said to actually have died (in the ancient writings) on a stake, pale or pile according to the original Greek word. The writers of the NT or Greek Scriptures wrote in the common loine' Greek, and used the word stauros' to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. The Greek word xy'lon was also used and had the same meaning as stauros'.

2. Where does it speak of a cross bar or beam in the scriptures? The cross beam had a different word attached to it: patibulum'. No where does it say that Jesus died on a stauros' with a patibulum' attached!

3. “Vines Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words” – Mentions the Chaldean origin of the 2 piece cross and how Christendom adopted it from the pagans in the 3rd century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement. “In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system, pagans were received into the churches…and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the crosspiece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.” The lexicons then altered the word stauros’ to mean a cross to the ire of many scholars! (“The Non-Christian Cross” by J.D. Parsons 1896.)

4. We all know that the Jews were reported to have instigated the death of Jesus and used the Romans to facilitate it. It is actually a strong possibility that the Sadducees with Ca'iaphas being the High Priest that year, was involved in the plot against Jesus with the Pharisees being the lackeys("I'll sit in the car while you rob the store"). It went against Jewish law to pass a death sentence of crucifixion. The Jewish Encyclopedia states under “Crucifixion” - “Among the modes of Capital Punishment known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found; the “hanging” of criminals “on a tree” mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22, was resorted to in New testament times only after lapidating (stoning)."

5. It was the Roman policy to break the limbs of the criminals after hours or days of being on the cross to expedite the asphyxiation process. But according to prophesy the "Lamb of God" was to fulfill the Jewish Passover requirement of; no bones were to be broken in order to fulfill the anti-typical Passover sacrifice - a like for a like. He needed to die quickly and the cross wouldn’t have sufficed.

6. Medical evidence showing the likelihood that Christ did not die on the cross: Joseph Zias who was the Curator of Archaeology/Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities from 1972-1997 wrote under "Crucifixion in Antiquity:-




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
“While many researchers have believed that death occurred as the result of a ruptured heart due to the story in John 19:34 of the water and blood flowing out of the wound, pathologists such as Zugiibe, have ruled this out as medically untenable. Other scholars have regarded asphyxiation as being the cause of death however; the latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated, depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross. A series of experiments - showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing. This the often quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched - If, however, the victims are tied with their hands extended over their heads and left hanging, death can occur within an hour or, in minutes if the victims legs are nailed so that he cannot use his arms to elevate the body to exhale...."

7. The idea of Christ dying on a cross did not really enter the religious picture until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. He was said to have had dreams involving crosses and is said to have seen crosses in the sky. He took this as an omen and added this philosophy to the Church beliefs (apparently not knowing the pagan history behind it). His mother Helena could have contributed to the sanctifying of this emblem by incorporating this into Christianity.

8. There were not any historians recording the death of Christ. Historian Josephus was not around yet. He did speak of ones surviving a sentence of death on a cross and actually living (with medical help). Other historians such as Livy defined crux as a stake.

9. Paganism enters the picture: “Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics” – “With the 4th century magical belief began to take a firmer hold within the church…The surest defense against demons, and the remedy for all diseases – using the cross.”

10. Last but not least was the pagan significance associated with the cross in phallic worship. Going all the way back to ancient Egypt with the crux ansata & ankh (“A Short History of Sex-worship” – H. Cutner). It is very doubtful in my opinion and many historians that Jesus would have been linked in his death to this emblem.

I have been very wordy and I apologize. But there is much more, and I would love it if some of you could tell me what you know!

I believe that this is huge. If these scholars have even a remote possibility of being right, then what else is there to be exposed about religion? What else is false and being taught as truth?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
i think also it has to do with were the nails are placed.

correct me if im wrong but i think if the nails were placed in the palms like most art depicts, the nail would rip out because of the weight of the body. if the nails were placed in the wrists, then the body would hang on the bone.

this is a great thread btw. im glad someone finally brought this up.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
You need to understand how crucifiction took place. Unlike the movies where you see a cross being errected, the main beam was stationed permanently. The hands were nailed to the cross beam, which was lifted up by ropes, then the feet were nailed on. This made for more efficent placing and removal of a person from the cross. Jesus was hung on a pole, or stake, while also being hung on a cross, there is no contradiction, just with the images in our head due to watching too many movies. Also tests have been done that prove nails in the hands do hold the weight of a human.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex
You need to understand how crucifiction took place. Unlike the movies where you see a cross being errected, the main beam was stationed permanently. The hands were nailed to the cross beam, which was lifted up by ropes, then the feet were nailed on. This made for more efficent placing and removal of a person from the cross. Jesus was hung on a pole, or stake, while also being hung on a cross, there is no contradiction, just with the images in our head due to watching too many movies. Also tests have been done that prove nails in the hands do hold the weight of a human.


ok, do you have ANY references to this? or is it pure theory? because right now historical evidence is saying something different. even greek translations of the bible are saying something different



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners


[edit on 3/26/2008 by Cuhail]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
ok, do you have ANY references to this? or is it pure theory? because right now historical evidence is saying something different. even greek translations of the bible are saying something different




A cruel prelude was scourging, which would cause the condemned to lose a large amount of blood, and approach a state of shock. The convict then usually had to carry the horizontal beam (patibulum in Latin) to the place of execution, but not necessarily the whole cross. Crucifixion was typically carried out by specialized teams, consisting of a commanding centurion and four soldiers. When it was done in an established place of execution, the vertical beam (stipes) could even be permanently embedded in the ground. The condemned was usually stripped naked - all the New Testament gospels, dated to around the same time as Josephus, describe soldiers gambling for the robes of Jesus. (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:23-25)

en.wikipedia.org...


The greek translations of the Bible are not saying anything different.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 



Also tests have been done that prove nails in the hands do hold the weight of a human.


This is why I listed 10 items and not just one. You only countered one but it still did not answer sufficiently the argument. Please read especially #'s: 4,5,8 and then read the rest again and find challenging arguments outside of opinion which does not count.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Graystar
 


I am sorry that you misinterpreted what I was saying:


As I have said a few times, I believe that Jesus did indeed exist, but for a far bigger reason than religion teaches.


What are you going to do if we are right and it gets exposed later to be actual truth? I respect that this is a touchy subject for you. Perhaps you should avoid all my threads in the future!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The real message of Christ has nothing to do with a wooden cross or Romans, or even the Jews. The spiritual message only says how the truth shall die, and that is that you cannot walk in faith or do the works of your hands to save yourself. That's the real message of the cross and also why Jesus was not able to save himself, the thief who begged Jesus to save him and the thief who was resigned to death with Jesus.

That's all it really says is that the truth died at some point in time. It doesn't even mean that Jesus was the truth at all.

The real truth is, that anyone can be gnostic when it comes to seeing God. You don't need a middle man. Leave Jesus to die on the cross and let it go.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 



That's all it really says is that the truth died at some point in time. It doesn't even mean that Jesus was the truth at all.


Should we not explore truth especially in these times where Truth may be revealed? How do we know that the truth is not dead any longer but is meant to be exposed? Does it pain you?

"The truth shall set you free, but first it will make you miserable!"



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Graystar
 


There are more worries on here than merely getting banned. Hijacking a thread by not respecting the guidelines and wishes of the OP merely reveals that you are trying to incite trouble and create a covert "gang up" on the OP scenario calling upon the "avengers of Jesus" religious nutsacks who are everywhere on here and in the world today- of which, IMO you are one of.

I do not run to the teacher and tattle because that is not my style and the site administrators have more important things to do in running this site than by running you off- you and your opinions in this thread simply are not that important as they are merely disrespectful.

*SNIP*

MatrixProphet- please forgive my intrusion. I accept full responsibility for this interruption and all consequences that go with it.

I would like to post in this thread regarding in accordance with your guidelines. Again I apologize for hijacking a high jacker in your thread.

Mod Edit: PLEASE READ




[edit on 3/26/2008 by Cuhail]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


Thank you for championing me!

This subject is in a "Conspiracies in Religions" forum! I kept it to the right forum and I ask that readers respect ATS in their willingness to allow very controversial thoughts, and in my right to say them!!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Matrix,

I like the thread and if all parties keep it real, I see no reason that it should go anywhere but forward. I do agree it's in the right forum as well...mine to Mod!



Cuhail



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Graystar

post removed because the user has no concept of manners


[edit on 3/26/2008 by Cuhail]

Nice. Real nice. So this is what it's like to be Christian, huh.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Can we focus on the TOPIC please? I hate to think all the smart members of ATS would be so easily distracted.


Thank you,
Cuhail



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex

Originally posted by miriam0566
ok, do you have ANY references to this? or is it pure theory? because right now historical evidence is saying something different. even greek translations of the bible are saying something different




A cruel prelude was scourging, which would cause the condemned to lose a large amount of blood, and approach a state of shock. The convict then usually had to carry the horizontal beam (patibulum in Latin) to the place of execution, but not necessarily the whole cross. Crucifixion was typically carried out by specialized teams, consisting of a commanding centurion and four soldiers. When it was done in an established place of execution, the vertical beam (stipes) could even be permanently embedded in the ground. The condemned was usually stripped naked - all the New Testament gospels, dated to around the same time as Josephus, describe soldiers gambling for the robes of Jesus. (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:23-25)

en.wikipedia.org...


The greek translations of the Bible are not saying anything different.


im sorry, but wiki is not completely trustworthy as a source, if you have any other´s, id be glad to hear your side.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Ok, so the OP thinks that there wasnt a crossbeam? Well history tells us different, the Romans didnt invent crucifixion but borrowed the idea from the Persians, who used crucifixion as early as King Darius I in 519 B.C.

Alexander the Great used it to a great deal through out his empire and it seems from just googling crucifixion that most scholars show a crossbeam but differ on the particulars of how the crossbeam was used.

The going theory is that the main beam was stationary and the crossbeam was lifted into place with the victim nailed and/or tied to it. Here is a link to some history of crucifixion with annecdotes to follow up on if you are so inclined, but to discount that CRUCifixion, notice the capitals, did not use a cross piece, I think is blatantly wrong.

The romans used it and they werent the first and there was a crossbeam involved. I googled it and found quite a bit of info, didnt take long, and if you really dont like my answer, ask a Theologian or Historian at a local University, or try finding the history of crucifixion at the library.

And I have seen how the greek word is translated into pole/pike but I would go back to the Hebrew or Aramaic and check that. Translations are not infallible. And I think that JW's are notorious for thinking the same thing, not that you are one, just that they believe that there was no cross, but I still think that historically there was a crossmember.

Also, that link I posted is an article by Joe Zias and he was the Curator of Archaeology/Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority from 1972 to 1997. So there is some credibility to be had.




Peace.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Springheel Jack]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Springheel Jack
 



Ok, so the OP thinks that there wasnt a crossbeam? Well history tells us different, the Romans didnt invent crucifixion but borrowed the idea from the Persians, who used crucifixion as early as King Darius I in 519 B.C.


I don't think there is any confusion as to where crucifixion started. The Romans certainly used the cross, of that there is no debate. But it did depend upon the availability of timber and the time.


Crucifixion amongst the Jews was rare and except for a few instances, the subject was stoned to death first and then hung on a tree in accordance with the Biblical passage in Deuteronomy 21:22-23:


Notice: they were also hung on a tree. Again this supports #4.

Bravo!! I went to your link and was surprised as you referenced one of my resources! Joseph Zias, look to #6 in my thread. Go back to your link and read #9 - #17. I quoted him.


And I have seen how the greek word is translated into pole/pike but I would go back to the Hebrew or Aramaic and check that. Translations are not infallible.


On whose authority are you saying this? I actually used the scholars to support this thread. I assure you that they went to college as I did. But you wanted more evidence, here is some:

11. The Greek author Lucian of "Promertheus I" used 'anastauro'o' as a synonym for that word - to tie or to fasten. This word appears only once in the NT in Hebrews 6:6. The root verb stauro'o occurs more than 40 times, and some scholars have rendered it 'impale' (rather than crucify) because of the meaning 'to fasten on a stake or pole.'

12. In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century BC, crux means a mere stake. "Cross'" is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim'plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book "De cruce libri tres" - Antwerp, 1629, pg. 19

13. The Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11 uses xy'lon - referring to single beam or timber.

The point being - the words in the NT; stauros, crux, xy'lon were applied to Jesus sacrificial death and recorded as such in the NT, and according to historians was not a cross. Thousands of others died on crosses especially with the Jewish uprising in the later 60's to 70CE.

The two objections I have had on this thread is only dealing with the cross beam, why is that just the focus and not my other 8 points?

I am not a religious person and in saying so am not a Witness nor a Mormon. I do not want to repeat my whole thread so please read it again.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by MatrixProphet]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Awesome post. I began having computer issues during my new post to your thread. I will get to it. It was about Lee Iococca who is Christian and once spoke about the morals and values of the religion blah blah blah- the usual and he also discussed how Jesus as his savior protected him from Chrysler Corp, (which yes- Chrsyler and Christ is very connected...another subject...I digress). Anyway in defending his post at the company he kept a Mercedes Benz logo over his desk (naturally this caused issues at Chrysler) and he nearly was fired because he said he wanted to be CEO of the finest automotive company in the world and his dream was merging the two as one.

If you examine what I just said- the power of imagery you can glean how this is related to this thread! At the time I was Christian and this was a Christian event. I was there when Iococca made this testimony. He shut up and became quite silent for a long time after his little positive spiritual statement.

Someone somewhere told him to shut up or the idiots (meaning us "cerfs") might piece it together figure it out and think they deserve to eat at our table!

Will write more later!

PS-I will always champion truth- and not much else!

PPS- The pope uses a special cross with Jesus crucified which does contradict and support of much of this information.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join